Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-27-2008, 07:31 AM

YP what I believe from the surrounding context of 1 Cor 15 is that the Son changed form in resurrection and this does not have to = He became the Holy Spirit as Lee math insists.

I think it might behoove you to study what the distinction of the Holy Spirit is and why the distinction is made in the NT.

YP0534 · 07-27-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

I think it might behoove you to study what the distinction of the Holy Spirit is and why the distinction is made in the NT.

Pehaps you can help me to understand such a study, since it appears that you have made it very well to become a teacher.

Please feel free to explain at this point your understanding about "what the distinction of the Holy Spirit is and why the distinction is made in the NT."

Thank you.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-27-2008, 11:12 AM

YP no I think you should do the study yourself because it will be more meaningful to you.

Old Rasputin · 07-27-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

I really could care less where this doctrine came from or if it came from anyone in particular. The discussions running counter to it are just really weak and illogical.

That's all I'm really saying. I'm completely open to hearing Lee was wrong about anything, including this point, but what I've heard herein just ain't it. All I've heard is, well, Lee's doctrine doesn't fit the ancient doctrine very well so we'd like to come up with something different that maybe does fit the ancient doctrine better.

I think I'm in the same boat. I'm ready to be convinced, but haven't seen a convincing argument yet that a life-giving spirit is different from the Holy Spirit. Sme with, now the Lord is the Spirit. Why is problematic if the new Testament shows us a deep unity between the Son and the Spirit?

For me it has nothing to do with Lee math. It seems to be what the Bible is saying.

YP0534 · 07-27-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

I think I'm in the same boat. I'm ready to be convinced, but haven't seen a convincing argument yet that a life-giving spirit is different from the Holy Spirit. Sme with, now the Lord is the Spirit. Why is problematic if the new Testament shows us a deep unity between the Son and the Spirit?

For me it has nothing to do with Lee math. It seems to be what the Bible is saying.

Thanks for the props, OR.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-27-2008, 12:18 PM

Old Rasp are we discussing a deep unity between the Son and the Holy Spirit? Because if that is the discussion I can think of no Christian that would dispute it. I thought we were discussing the Son becoming the Holy Spirit in which case the distinction between the two would become moot.

Arizona · 07-27-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Old Rasp are we discussing a deep unity between the Son and the Holy Spirit? Because if that is the discussion I can think of no Christian that would dispute it. I thought we were discussing the Son becoming the Holy Spirit in which case the distinction between the two would become moot.

With no small amount of fear and trepidation I join this discussion.

djohnson's point here seems to be the central concept that I have wrestled with in trying to understand.

2 ideas: I have always appreciated W Lee's teaching re the Sons incarnation being not just from the Father but "from-with" the Father. The Bible tells us that the Comforter was sent from the Father and from the Son. The Lord Jesus tells us "I am coming to you". So, the Spirit comes, again, "from-with" the Father, and "from-with" the Son. The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in us! So the Triune God is in us, but not separated or apart from one another. The question for me has always been this: Is this concept one of Oneness, ie union or one of "one and the same", without distinction?

Second, we are told that there is one mediator between God and man and that one is the man Christ Jesus. The Man. It seems this must be a present spiritual reality in order that we humans may experience and enjoy that which the Lord accomplished on the cross so somehow the humanity of Jesus must be involved spiritually.

I hope I have made some sense. My thoughts dont always translate on paper as I would like.

I would appreciate commentary,,,,, I just ask for love and mercy!!

YP0534 · 07-27-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

YP no I think you should do the study yourself because it will be more meaningful to you.

I cannot study what you want me to study because this is not there, djohnson.

Your logic, once again, is unassailable.

07-27-2008, 07:31 AM	#1
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	YP what I believe from the surrounding context of 1 Cor 15 is that the Son changed form in resurrection and this does not have to = He became the Holy Spirit as Lee math insists. I think it might behoove you to study what the distinction of the Holy Spirit is and why the distinction is made in the NT. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-27-2008, 11:12 AM	#3
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	YP no I think you should do the study yourself because it will be more meaningful to you. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-27-2008, 12:18 PM	#6
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Old Rasp are we discussing a deep unity between the Son and the Holy Spirit? Because if that is the discussion I can think of no Christian that would dispute it. I thought we were discussing the Son becoming the Holy Spirit in which case the distinction between the two would become moot. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!